Now that you have a definition for mortality rate—time for an update in your post?
I presume more people will be reading so clarification would be valuable.
:) liquid/paste/pulp … mechanically processing your food with your teeth to increase its surface area is a good thing. Chewing increases the production of saliva so more enzymes available and more time for them to mix with the food. Although I dislike the expression, it’s a “no-brainer” to me hence the confidence.
I was expecting more of a push-back on food that’s grown not manufactured. A visceral belief but I’d struggle to form a rational argument—there’s a lack of scientific proof for something so hard to test. Nature’s hard to beat.
from the CDC.
A mortality rate is a measure of the frequency of occurrence of death in a defined population during a specified interval.
i.e not based on number of cases v. death, it’s population v. death.
you say “better digestion = better”, but why? and why do you believe it?
We are one unit of many parts—complex and interconnected.
Simply put, improvements in digestion = better absorption of nutrients = benefit of the whole.
I believe it because of:
observation that I feel better after eating when I’ve fully chewed my foods.
my knowledge of basic human physiology.
I don’t know what your knowledge base is but if you don’t believe that the thorough chewing of food is a good idea, it’ll be more productive for you to do a search for “benefits of chewing” and work from there rather than me trying to explain the digestive (and related) processes from mouth to rectum.
I’m with you on the satiety thing.
Why? What is this belief based on?
If you are happy with the concept of stopping eating when the body says “full” then more chewing = longer time with each mouthful of food = increased chance of sufficient time for satiety messages to be sent = less food consumed which, for many people, would be a good thing.
The chewing bit is the one I’m skeptical of. I don’t currently chew this way.
While scepticism is a trait I encourage the fact you don’t chew this way is irrelevant to whether chewing food to a liquid before swallowing is beneficial or not.
If I did, what life outcomes would be better for me?
You could try it and see. Do rationalists like to find things out for themselves?
I don’t know what effect on your life outcome chewing your food will have. It should improve your digestion and that seems a positive.
It is harder to do than it sounds. It takes attention to change eating habits. Remembering to fully chew every mouthful. The basis of “mindful eating” sort of stuff.
Something that might interest you is embryology. Following the division and migration of cells to start forming a body is a fascinatingly complex insight into life although it’s a long time since I studied embryology (a nightmare subject to learn [and then mostly forget] in 2-D) so I don’t know what resources are out there these days.
If anyone was up for the exercise of creating a globe-base graphic showing the when and where of human history I would love to see it. From the known locations of predecessors to modern humans, the rise and fall of societies, civilisations, conflicts, border changes etc etc. A world-wide view of our collective history—quite a big project for comprehensive information gathering!
Chewing is the first step in the digestive process, prepping food before it enters the stomach but it is a step that is easily skipped.
Thorough chewing means your food is physically broken down—decreasing size of bits and increasing surface area so maximising exposure to its contents/nutrients.
Chewing also means the food is mixed with a lot of saliva which contains digestive enzymes to start the processing of food pre-stomach.
Catch yourself when you go to swallow a mouthful of food—how liquefied is it?
Better chewing = better digestion = better.
Satiety ~ the stomach telling the brain it’s full - 20 min is the touted time for that process. Chewing properly slows eating speed so satiety is reached with less food consumed. Stopping eating when your body signals ‘that’s enough’ will prevent excess consumption.
we’ve wiped out or drastically reduced most of the diseases that cause severe, attributable death and disability
we’ve wiped out or drastically reduced some diseases in some partsof the world. There’s a lot of infectious diseases still out there: HIV, influenza, malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, ebola, infectious forms of pneumonia, diarrhoea, hepatitis ….
we’ve connected the world with high-speed transport links, so that the subtle, minor diseases can spread further.
Disease has always spread—wherever people go, far and wide. It just took longer over land and sea (rather than the nodes appearing on global maps that we can see these days).
… very likely for autoimmune conditions … have risen greatly over time
“autoimmune conditions” covers a long list of conditions lumped together because they involve the immune system ‘going wrong’. (and the immune system is, at least to me, a mind-bogglingly complex system)
Given the wide range of conditions that could be “auto-immune” saying they’ve risen greatly over time is vague. Data for more specific conditions?
Increased rates of automimmune conditions could just be due to the increase in the recognition, diagnosis and recording of cases (I don’t think so but it should be considered).
What things other than high speed travel have also changed in that time-frame that could affect our immune systems? The quality of air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, our environment, levels of exposure to fauna and flora, exposure to chemicals, pollutants …? Air travel is just one factor.
I think this is somewhat likely for chronic fatigue and depression, including subclinical varieties that are extremely widespread.
Fatigue and depression are clinical symptoms—they are either present or not (to what degree—mild/severe is another matter) so sub-clinical is poor terminology here. Sub-clinical disease has no recognisable clinical findings—undiagnosed/unrecognised would be closer. But I agree there is widespread issues with health and well-being these days.
Or, put another way: the “hygiene hypothesis” is the opposite of true.
Opposite of true? Are you saying you believe the “hygiene hypothesis” is false?
In which case, that’s a big leap from your reasoning above.
My full confidence as being correct/right/true:
Chew every mouthful of food until it’s liquid (edited to add: a pulp, paste)before swallowing.
Stop eating as soon as you have the thought “that’s enough” - satiety has been reached.
This I believe:
It’s better to eat food that’s been “grown” rather than “manufactured”.
Could you post your essays here too rather than just linking?
There is the sequence feature that would allow you to put them in order and keep them together.
My mind keeps flicking back to this.
Newcomb’s problem—I’m told to imagine a (so far been) perfect predictor so I imagine it. I don’t have an issue with the concept of the perfect predictor (possibly because I tend to think of time as more of a ‘puddle’ even if mine appears linear) so one-boxing is the way to go. I can’t get past that in my head, am I missing something?
that there are situations where your choice of thought process can help to determine the world you find yourself in—that making decisions in a dualist framework (one that assumes your thoughts affect the world only through your actions) can sometimes be leaving out important information.
I’ll be honest, this sentence confuses me. I don’t know what to make of it.
Collaborative v. adversarial are not categories I’d use for feedback—but do you not sometimes succeed because of what you’ve written, or is it the way the recipient receives it?
I aim to be factual and fair. But also honest and direct. Which can come over as harsh sometimes but it comes from a position of wanting to help.
How much time do I spend framing ‘less than congratulatory’ feedback?
How is the author going to take that feedback whatever I write?
A lot comes down to the author’s reaction rather than the feedback given.
I get the impression that there’s bloggers that want to write stuff and bask in their glory of great thinking, and then there’s other authors that are developing thoughts and ideas. Who wants feedback?
Thanks for writing this. This post comes at an apt time as I’m considering commenting more on LW (a club I’ve crashed but I’m making myself at home).
I read this post and it feels all about positive feedback—phases like “say if you like something, ideas that stand out, worth writing more about …”
What about comments that aren’t so flattering? That might be considered critical, negative, in disagreement?
Pointing out biases and errors, things that should be re-worded and what’s just a load of waffle?!
It would be useful to know which authors want honest feedback - I’m not bothered about the negative karma as such, but it’s a waste of my time commenting if it’s down-voted out of view and/or the author isn’t interested in the thoughts of this internet-random.
If ideas are to be developed and thought improved, should they not be open to all feedback?
whether it feels warm and fluffy or whether it’s a more like a kick in the guts.
Rational thinking—information gathering, logical thinking, considering all the possibilities, keeping an open mind, letting the ego go …
Have any less substantial harms been reported?
The PGP doesn’t “intentionally associate” a name with a genome. From the terms and conditions of PGP here.
9.1 No Confidentiality After Publication. If you are enrolled in the PGP and choose to publish any of your data to the PGP’s public website and database, that data will not be kept or made available by the PGP in a confidential or anonymous fashion. The PGP will not require any collaborators or other individuals accessing your information to keep the information in a confidential or anonymous fashion. Unless you withdraw from the study before your data are published, your genetic and trait data will be made available via a publicly accessible website and database. 9.2 Association of Your Name With Your Data. The PGP will not intentionally associate your name with your genomic or trait data or other information that is published to the PGP’s public website and database or otherwise intentionally identify you as a participant in the PGP without your prior consent. However, as described above, because of the identifiable nature of the information you provide to the PGP, as well as the nature of the data and analyses generated by the PGP, it is possible that one or more third parties may identify you as a participant in the study. This may result in the association of your published data and other information with your name or other information that you have not provided to the PGP and may not have wished to be publicly disclosed. 9.3 Efforts to Preserve Confidentiality Prior to Publication. Before your publication of specimen analysis data, the PGP will use reasonable efforts to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of such data, as well as other information you provide to the PGP in a private Protocol #: 15461 Harvard University Faculty of Medicine IRB PGP Consent Form Page 20 of 24 Revision 2015.05.05 manner (your name, answers to safety questionnaires and communication with project staff). You should be aware that the public disclosure of this information may still happen due to unintended data breaches, including hacking or other activities outside of the procedures described in this consent form. For this reason the PGP cannot guarantee that information you provide to the study, or that is generated about you by the study, will be maintained in a confidential manner.
Risks come with your genome being identifiable as you.
Publicly available and identifiable as you?
If you have genetic markers for various diseases present in your genome potential employers, insurance companies etc. could use this information—most likely for their benefit rather than for the benefit of the individual so I’d class this as a big potential risk that should be considered.
Some other risks/benefits based on perspective:
Your genome matches with something on a criminal database for a crime you’ve committed in the past and you get caught.
Your genome leads to a partial match on a criminal database for crime committed by a blood relative. They get caught
You happen to be a good genetic match for someone who needs body parts and isn’t adverse to using yours without asking permission.
Does this phenomenon have a name?
Laziness, apathy, indifference, lack of self-responsibility, weakness, stupidity, selfishness, herd mentality?
Ultimately the only person’s behaviour you can change is your own. Either you chose to do better things or you don’t. Lead by example if you care, otherwise you don’t care enough to change.
I had a quick read of the article, it’s not wrong (although I strongly argue that the strength for the abdomen comes from the rectus abdominis muscles rather than the lower back/lumbar muscles) - but I’m more right! The 5 main muscles of movement, the key to doing everything else, stretching, releasing re-balancing.
The expression “bony knobs” made up for any potential rudeness btw.
I am both a) desperate for the attention and b) mentally thinking ‘bring it on bitches’ so please do!
Something so obvious to me know but totally grounded in some basic anatomy if anyone cares to try to connect body and mind!
5 markers better than 4. There’s a lot of potential movement in the upper body so it is possible to align the pubic symphysis, navel and xiphoid process (aligning the linea alba between the rectus abdominis muscles) with the external occipital protuberance without the jugular notch aligning.
I’m try to get people to think about their body’s relative positioning and state of physical alignment. These 5 midline anatomical markers (4 bony knobs and a squishy bit!) are easily palpated—a simple introduction to begin mentally mapping the body’s relative positioning—to sow the seeds of thought as it were. More on our midline anatomy and using the median plane for body alignment here .
More on mental mapping here: conscious proprioception—our sense of position, movement and balance and the body map in the mind.
I don’t know what the military teaches about good posture (I image a lot of shouting about standing up straight) and a internet search hasn’t left me any further forward but if you’ve any links to lessons from the military I would be interested to see. My thoughts on posture are here, but summarised as: It’s muscles that create our posture. We should focus on the 5 ‘main muscles of movement’ for better posture. 5 main muscles made easy.
As for relaxation, using my body better, releasing physical tensions and regaining my natural range of movement has left me more relaxed than I ever remember!
My intro. post to LW said I’ve got something to share and ‘please rip to shreds’ - I meant it - so thank you for reading and questioning! Did you think about your midline markers?
Interesting to see the differences in thoughts about purpose of LW and what users want.
Is there a need for the differentiation between posts that are looking for a wide audience and those that want to remain contained to a small group?
Thanks for writing this.
“people who are not immersed in LessWrong culture or jargon.”
This is me. A creature from another time and space. I read about a website about rationality and got excited about potentially finding a group of people who think rationally.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff here on LW but could be more accessible. More formatting for ease of scanning allows readers to start picking up the important points.
There’s a lot of unnecessary words used—I wonder how much editing (pruning?) is done. The habit of giving something a few days to settle then re-reading it before publishing?
New perspectives would be useful for a lot of questions/discussions that I see here.
some basic reading on a few different viewpoints and think things through for yourself
try it yourself. Spend time in the field, practicing the relevant skills first-hand; see both what works and what makes sense. Collect data; run trials. See what other people suggest and test those things yourself. Directly study which things actually produce good results.
Excellent advice. A bit of research, some thought, get some experience, assess results.
A little surprised that it’s not standard practice, so it’s good you’ve written this post.
Indeed, top medical “experts” of the time would likely have warned him away from Jesty.
Speculation? I am being picky though, it’s a well written post but I can imagine other scenarios.
there is knowledge for which money cannot substitute
I’ve just made this post to help share some important knowledge. Try it for yourself.